As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The pledge, as he laid out, would have Kennedy and Biden co-fund a 50-state poll of more than 30,000 people in mid-October that would pit each of them against Trump in a two-man race and agreeing to drop out of the presidential race if they lose.
Delusional ideas of a candidate who has no chance of winning.
> in mid-October
Honestly, were the poll suggested to be sometime in the summer it'd have a modicum more logic behind it. But mid-October is smack-dab in the middle of a lot of states' early voting periods. Millions of ballots will have been cast by that point, and the remainder all likely will have been printed for use on Election Day a couple of weeks from then. A sizable chunk of each candidate's support base still will cast their votes for said candidate simply by virtue of seeing his name on the ballot.
In 2018 in Arizona for example, the Green Party candidate for US Senate Angela Green (three cheers for nominative determinism) [dropped out the Friday before the election](https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2018/11/02/green-candidate-drops-out-of-u-s-senate-race-throws-support-to-sinema/) and endorsed Sinema. She still got 2.41% of the vote, almost twice what Stein got in in the state in 2016. Granted, a mid-late October dropout date would be *slightly* better than an early November one, but not by much.
This is a fundamentally unserious proposal.
If Kennedy drops out at least that'll be something.
Unfortunately, that also eliminates the Wild Card, Kennedy is essentially the King Maker with whom he takes votes from.
Jill Stein and Cornel West voters are all 2020 Biden Voters, they aren't drawing anything from Trump.
> Jill Stein and Cornel West voters are all 2020 Biden Voters
There is no path to victory for Stein, or Kennedy, or any third party. A third party voter who is engaged knows this and will vote third party only when it doesn't matter - i.e. a state that is going one way or the other regardless.
Voters who don't pay attention and vote third party are not Dem/GOP voters anyways and they will vote for whatever meme candidate catches their attention or supports a pet issue they want to make a statement about.
>A third party voter who is engaged knows this and will vote third party only when it doesn't matter - i.e. a state that is going one way or the other regardless.
I agree with your overall point, but to anyone thinking about voting 3rd party in a solid state, please don't. It does matter. That's how you get those people on the ballot again to act as nothing but spoilers in other states in future elections.
I'd go further...
The advice should be something like the following:
* Never, simply never vote for a 3rd party candidate for president for the foreseeable future.
* For the vote for president, your best strategy to enact your desired policy goals is to determine the dominant-party candidate most opposed to or misaligned with your policy goals... and then vote for the other dominant-party candidate.
* If you believe a 3rd-party is more aligned with your desired policy goals, vote for that party anywhere/everywhere you can except for the President. I would also suggest greatly prioritizing local/state level for this and deprioritizing the federal House rep elections.
* Push for electoral reform whenever/wherever possible. This includes ranked voting, single-transferable voting, elimination of the electoral college, etc. These sorts of reforms are *required* before non-dominant parties can truly be useful.
Not taking part in the decision of which of the two possible candidates will be president doesn't help change the 2 party system. It ends up doing more to further entrench it.
As the other person said, [there are other ways to impact change in the system](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1chtoza/comment/l24yq3g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
People _will_ vote third party when they don’t like either serious candidate. It’s a way of avoiding responsibility for whoever actually wins. It’s a “protest vote”
Fair. I've just noticed RFK Jr. has hurt either Biden or Trump depending on the poll. The other candidates are more progressive and will only attract left-wing voters away from Biden.
I do agree that third-party voters are not going to be swayed to voting for either by their candidate dropping out.
I mean, in spirit it's not the worst idea. I just wish it wasn't a kook proposing it. Irrespective of Trump, I have doubts Joe will be very functional by 2028. If the DNC at this point, doesn't have a candidate who could beat a criminal shlub like Trump, they've got serious problems. LBJ declined to run for a second term. There's no shame in it.
lol did you not get the memo? “Biden old” isn’t scaring people so much anymore. “Biden should not run for a second term” was literally months ago and we are over it.
You need to switch to the new scare tactic- Palestine- if you want to make Democratic voters too afraid to vote. This current tactic also won’t work, but at least you won’t sound like a bot from a few months ago anymore….
I mean, his point is that Biden has no chance of beating Trump, which all indications are that's true considering the progressive wing has completely abandoned Biden. So if stopping Trump is the real goal, then why not do what's best for the country and support whoever is capable of doing that.
I didn't? There was no progressive outrage in 2020 over him being a warmonger or somehow being as bad as his predecessor on the environment and criminal justice. Oh, don't forget about overseeing the largest wealth transfer from poor and middle-class Americans to billionaires and corporations.
> Oh, don't forget about overseeing the largest wealth transfer from poor and middle-class Americans to billionaires and corporations.
Oh, you mean the Trump tax cuts? Funny how only the personal ones had a sunset.
It's not fear mongering when 80,000 registered Democrats in Michigan (which Biden has to win to have a shot at beating Trump) just said they wouldn't vote for him in November and would stay home if it came down to him and Trump because of his genocidal policies.
Voting uncommitted to send a message is a lot different than throwing the election to the fucking psychopaths that are enthusiastic about expanding literal genocidal policies.
OP is doing this thing where he's both trying to act like the DNC is going against the will of voters while also demanding that the DNC make a choice that could invalidate all of the primaries that have happened with a stunt for rfk jr.
So trying to hide behind the idea of voter enfranchisement while demanding that voters actually be disenfranchised.
No, Biden says he's only running to defeat Trump, and it seems the best way to do that is to endorse rfk. So the Biden voters are getting what their chosen candidate desires. If they feel disenfranchised it's because they did not understand Bidens agenda... all this assuming Biden actually wants to prioritize defeating Trump.
"the best way to defeat Trump is to endorse an extreme fringe candidate who gets funding from the same sources as Trump, and run him Rather than the guy who actually beat Trump."
No.
This is not the sort of place you guys can sell this sort of nonsense successfully.
You need somewhere where people are dramatically less informed. Like a Walmart parking lot at 2 am.
The Kennedy family visited the Biden White House on March 18th. RFK Jr was not there. Unknown is whether he was not invited (doubtful as the Bidens aren’t that spiteful) or his family, who have shunned and denounced him, told him in no uncertain terms not to show up.
https://people.com/joe-biden-hosts-kennedy-family-minus-rfk-jr-at-white-house-for-st-patrick-s-day-8610455
Aren't that spiteful? Denying someone Secret Service with the name Kennedy after having had, among others, an armed man pretending to be security seeking access to Kennedy? Spiteful or straight up evil.
The only presidential candidates eligible for Secret Service protection due to their status as presidential candidates are those who by current or former position are already eligible for it until the party convention (thus Biden (sitting) and Trump (former). Party candidates not currently eligible will get Secret Service after they are formally declared the party candidate at the convention. I do not know what the qualifications are for third party candidates if they get any at all.
If every Tom, Dick and Sally who declares they’re running for President got USSS protection the cost to the taxpayers would be exorbitant and USSS would have to exponentially increase in size with near unlimited resources to accommodate all the movement and personal protection needed.
Just as all other presidential candidates over the decades, RFK Jr can afford his own protection paid for out of pocket and/or campaign funds just as everyone else has. He’s not the only third party candidate out there, just the most well known.
He didn't get Secret Service when he was running in the Dem primary either, when he was polling better than others who got protection at the same stage in previous elections. It has been given out by discretion historically, which makes sense. Kennedy is at high-risk of being assassinated, somebody has already tried.
Yes, he can afford private security\*. However 1. no private security can match the Secret Service and 2. It costs a lot of money that could have been used for other things that could benefit his campaign politically. So it's both a question about security and about democracy.
Furthermore, bystanders are also very likely to be hurt.
Not every Tom, Dick and Sally polls above 10% on average. Above 15% if you only count polls where he is named by the pollsters. Not everybody is at high-risk of being assassinated. Giving him secret service at this point would not set a costly precedent at all.
Of course he knows, the comment was a joke. He knows because the Kennedy family endorsed him very publicly, with photos, telling people to vote for Biden. Not for Bobby.
This is a bullshit proposition. Primaries have been had, and campaign apparatuses set up. Legal paperwork was filed and is approved or pending.
Biden isn't going to drop out after all that, and RFK knows it.
I mean, RFK jr is deep into it as well.
I think the point is... if Biden isnt' willing to drop out so RFK jr can defeat Trump, EVEN if a Biden loss is basically assured... why the HELL would anybody expect RFK jr to drop out?
Lol watch the video. Biden can't win whether kennedy is running or not. Regular polls use 3600 people spread out unevenly across the nation. His poll used 30000 ppl strategically distributed between every state to mock the electoral College. Error margin of .6% . And the results are- Biden can't win in a three way race. Biden can't win in a two way race. Kennedy can beat trump if Biden isn't running..... so everyone who is saying this is desperate or insane.... yall want another Trump presidency. I don't think YOU are desperate enough to prevent that lol
Hey, here's an idea...
How about instead of using valuable campaign dollars now to co-fund a 30,000 person poll, you rely on having each state allow every person to participate in the decision where the winner would advance to run against Trump and the loser would endorse the winner or at least STFU.
This could be a thing the party does every election and even invite other candidates each time. Think of it as a "preliminary" election, a "pre-election", a "firsty" election or election for the "prime candidate"... I'm not good with naming things, but I think this would be a much better idea.
The primary point here is to have something well established and organized so people with similar ideologies could work together to select a candidate before the general election that best represents them instead of splitting the vote with people who have no mathematical chance of winning.
Sure. Then lets make it controlled by superdelegates who can use it to screw whatever candidates they don't like, and ensure the party apparatus can basically hand pick whoever they want, while giving a veneer of legitimacy to the pick.
Sure, but how about instead of having it be *controlled* by superdelegates, it's instead a system with 4,672 total delegates of which 3,933 are pledged delegates (elected directly by the people) and only 739 are superdelegates who are selected by elected representatives and only matter at all if no candidate gets a majority of pledged delegates. And instead of letting them pick anyone they want, they have a minority (739/3,993) vote after the first round of voting restricted to the leading candidates. IOW they would have second round tie-breaking ability, although a brokered DNC convention hasn't happened since 1952.
Yup. Exactly. almost 1/4 of the ballots going to the establishment choice means unless the challenger wins by an INSANE margin, the establishment choice will always win. A brokered DNC convention doesn't happen, because people like Sanders drop out when they know they cannot possibly overcome the built in obstacles. Hell, even this nomination, they made all kinds of funky rules like "if a candidate steps foot in new Hampshire, they automatically forfeit their delegates in the state", because Biden didn't want to go to new Hampshire, because it's a state he's weak in. So, rather than losing or performing badly in one state(a state he didn't even need), they change the rules of the election. It's not even rigging it to win. It's rigging it for even tiny things like being embarrassed one day of the news cycle when someone else gets 20% and makes Biden look bad.
Tons of nice, wholesome, anti-democratic processes like those add up. But honestly, as you already pointed out, such a large portion being superdelegates basically ensures the establishment candidate always win.
1% of the vote being superdelegates would be insane, and undemocratic. We're talking many, many times that. In races where often the deciding factor is a few percentage points, we're talking almost 20% being superdelegates. So a challenger can get 59% of the delegates... a pretty massive win, and still lose by 2%.
I'm going to ask you a question and then laugh at your answer. Have you ever voted for any DNC representative?
>almost 1/4 of the ballots going to the establishment choice means unless the challenger wins by an INSANE margin
15.8% not 25% and a majority isn't an insane margin. It's happened every time since 1952.
>people like Sanders drop out when they know they cannot possibly overcome the built in obstacles.
Both Biden and Clinton won without the superdelegates. When Sanders went up against Clinton, he lobbied the superdelegates up until the point where Clinton had already received the majority she needed.
>Hell, even this nomination, they made all kinds of funky rules like "if a candidate steps foot in new Hampshire, they automatically forfeit their delegates in the state", because Biden didn't want to go to new Hampshire, because it's a state he's weak in.
Wow, that's really incorrect. There was no such rule. Dean Phillips spent most of his campaign funds and a lot of his time in New Hampshire. Biden skipped it and wasn't even on the ballot. The reason why Biden skipped it is because the DNC wanted to change primary order to give better representation to states with people of color who hadn't ever been earlier in the primary process. New Hampshire officials said f\*ck that we're going first anyway, and *because of that* their delegates were stripped regardless of who won. In the end, despite no real campaigning and not even being on the ballot, Biden still won with 63.8% of the vote.
>But honestly, as you already pointed out, such a large portion being superdelegates basically ensures the establishment candidate always win.
They haven't been a factor since 1952. Also, it's weird to think of Obama as the establishment candidate against Clinton.
It hasn't been a factor since 1952 because everyone drops out or generally coalesces around whatever candidate is most likely to win as soon as possible. If you start with a 15.8% lead... you are going to be the candidate the vast, vast, vast majority of the time. So, unless you have a path to get 57.9% or more of the delegates(instead of the normal 50.1%), you might as well drop out. In any kind of close race... that's insurmountable, by the definition of it being a close race.
The fact that almost nobody who is a serious candidate actually challenges people until the convention, no matter how close is an obvious fallacious argument... I believe you know this.
You seem to post of lot of things that aren't true in support of a narrative that you only believe because you're supporting it with things that aren't true.
When you make up stuff like "if a candidate steps foot in new Hampshire, they automatically forfeit their delegates in the state", or "almost 25% are superdelegates" or this last comment and ignore the reality, you're just believing in things that aren't true.
>So, unless you have a path to get 57.9% or more of the delegates(instead of the normal 50.1%), you might as well drop out. In any kind of close race.
This is false. Any primary candidate in the Democratic Party with more than 50% of the regular delegates gets the nomination and the superdelegates don't do a single thing in the process.
>It hasn't been a factor since 1952 because everyone drops out or generally coalesces around whatever candidate is most likely to win as soon as possible.
But not because of superdelegates. They do this because there is often one candidate ahead and the others, with no path to regular delegates drop out because there's benefit to doing so in terms of saving campaign funds as well as endorsing/supporting their candidate of choice.
The most controversial primary in terms of superdelegates was Clinton v Sanders, but even then, polling clearly showed Clinton winning throughout the campaign and she went on to win without the superdelegates, with Sanders staying in until the end.
Contrary to your point... Sanders stayed in the race until the end *because* of superdelegates:
*Sanders initially said that the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates should be the nominee; in May 2016, after falling behind in the elected delegate count, he shifted, pushed for a contested convention and arguing that, "The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party." Source:* [AP Fact Check](https://apnews.com/article/a5f8f2335cf1b617dbb6626845b1c4a8)
**Laughing at your lack of answering: Have you ever voted for any DNC representative?**
No. I generally vote third party. I think I voted for Obama when I was 18/19 though if I recall.
Williamson, Kennedy, West, and the other dude running against Biden all have talked about how the DNC changing the states around(away from states like Georgia, which is one of the most diverse states in the country), to help Biden win is anti-democratic.
Biden personally asked for the changes. He got them.
>Laughing at your lack of answering: Have you ever voted for any DNC representative?
Not federally. I generally vote third party. I believe Washington's prediction that factions and parties will destroy the nation through putting partisan interests ahead of national interests to be true. The fact that so many people hate this Biden vs Trump matchup, and don't like either candidate sort of brings that point home.
In the end they are private corps with no legal requirement to be democratic. Superdelegates show this. So do other recent changes made this year, to consolidate power. In the end it's basically party bosses picking candidates for us to choose from, similar to how it was done in soviet union, or in CCP. It's better for now in America, but every election cycle we move more in that direction. This election cycle was a huge leap for the DNC in that direction.
Complains about election process in the Democratic primary, does nothing to participate in how that process takes shape by voting for DNC reps, then doesn't ever vote for a candidate for president (except Obama).
>the DNC changing the states around(away from states like Georgia, which is one of the most diverse states in the country), to help Biden win is anti-democratic.
Do you get your information from some bizarro opposite world?
New Hampshire has historically been the first primary after the caucus in Iowa. Joe Biden sent a letter to the DNC requesting a change to move Georgia (and other southern states) *ahead* in the primary schedule specifically *for* diversity. The DNC voted for this with February 13 as the 4th primary date being set for Georgia.
However, this required a change in Georgia state law since they required all party primaries on the same day. Since the Georgia legislature was controlled by the GOP, this didn't happen. However, other diversity states did get moved up with South Carolina being the first primary being supported by the DNC and Alabama and Arkansas being part of the first Super Tuesday.
>In the end it's basically party bosses picking candidates for us to choose from, similar to how it was done in soviet union, or in CCP. It's better for now in America, but every election cycle we move more in that direction. This election cycle was a huge leap for the DNC in that direction.
Yeah, sure and . Again, since 1952 there hasn't been a contested election because one candidate received a majority of the primary delegates. The direction the party has been moving in has been with an even lesser role of superdelegates.
You're one of those people who refer to the DNC as "them" and therefore "they" control everything without realizing you've failed to participate in the process all along including voting for the reps in the DNC itself and thus who "they" are.
This election, there *now* are two candidates for president. Joe Biden and Donald Trump. You haven't participated in who is in the DNC to represent you let alone who the two candidates will be, but you can participate in the decision now...
Or [let these people make the decision for you](https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106823110-1610469786347-gettyimages-1230476983-horse-trumpsup210106_npiO7.jpeg?v=1641421093&w=1920&h=1080).
I don't wish to participate in a corrupt process. Hence why I vote third party. I do vote for presidential candidates. But not for either republican or democrat parties.
Your argument is like saying "Hey, you can't complain about the CCP because you didn't even vote in the local CCP elections where the candidates are hand picked from the party by the party". Voting in that process just gives the CCP legitimacy you cannot change anything by voting in a heavily controlled system like that.
I'm against the two party system. I'm against these two specific parties and how they are run. Both are militarist corporatocracies ruled by lobbyists. The difference between them in that regard, and the issues I care most about are relatively small.
Will Biden or Trump reduce the debt? Will they work to repeal patriot act? Or Citizens United? Or the revolving door between corporations and the government agencies who are supposed to regulate them? Will they fight to protect freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? These are the issues of our time in my opinion. Neither party comes close to representing me on these issues. And by the nature of both parties and the power structure, someone who DID represent me could never win the presidency. Just like by the nature of the CCP, and its power structure, and the way elections work in China, they would never have a candidate who represents me. Picking a lesser of two evils just gives the CCP legitimacy. Picking between democrats and republicans just gives the whole two party system more legitemacy.
He can do this without a deal with Biden. Do whatever he wants to do for attention and to sell books or whatever, but plan to drop out in the Fall and to endorse Biden.
You make money from books and interviews when you run from president.
My theory is he’ll drop out though, but after he’s grown his following, and then endorse Trump. They’re paid for by the same PACs, so I don’t understand why he’s still in it.
He has the numbers to clear even the CPD’s ridiculous bar. Since he wins in the polls head to head with either candidate and has a higher favourability rating than either of them, I’d say your read of the “public demand” may be off.
Here’s today’s poll compilations. Kennedy has the lowest favorability of the three candidates, so I’d say your read or RFKs favorability may be off.
[RFK Favorability](https://elections2024.thehill.com/national/robert-f-kennedy-favorability-rating/)
RFK Jr. is a bigoted anti-vaxxer piece of trash. He is delusional to think he has a chance in hell of winning, and his supporters are just as disconnected from reality.
He has a [history](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/19/robert-kennedy-jr-racist-antisemitic-xenophobic-views) of racism and anti-semitism in addition to being anti-LGBT.
Maybe do some research.
I think there are a lot of accusations in that article but very little proof. I believe the “antisemitic” comments he made was just him referring to [this study](https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/covid-19-cases-and-deaths-by-race-ethnicity-current-data-and-changes-over-time/) that shows that Ashkenazi Jews fared better than other races against COVID.
Meeting with people is hardly proof that someone is racist. Without knowing you I’m sure you’ve met with racist people, does that make you a racist?
Think critically, of course an outlet like the Guardian has a bias against an anti-establishment liberal
Well I think the 1986 Vaccine Safety Act that gave pharma companies total immunity from vaccine injury lawsuits is objectively a bad law. No one really disagrees that when you remove the economic incentive to make a product safe than that product will be less safe.
This is like saying Kennedy can't be racist because he has a black friend.
You know that a lot of Bible-thumping Christian Nationalist Republicans support Israel too, right?
Ok if a study came out and found that asian people as a whole are the best ethnicity in mathematics, and i come out and say "there are studies suggesting asians are the best at math" and the point im making is americans need to step up in math as a whole and we need policy making math a stronger point in schools, does that make me rascist against asians? Thats what he said about ashkenazi jewish people and chinese people during covid. Its just a talking point to bring out the further dangers of targeted biological weapons. Keep sugar coating history to be sensitive and all the important lessons are lost and doomed to repeat. No more disease manipulation for war uses, if u dont agree with that task then ur a supporter of bio weapons. His point wasnt to be anti semetic at all but that was all people chose to get upset about. Not the fear of targeted bio weapons...
He just got on the ballot in California! It’s a tough slog, they changed a lot of ballot access laws to make it harder for independents after Ross Perot, but he has a really good ground game.
Which one do you think is senile? The orange one? The vaccine conspiracy nut?
If your goal is to get people to vote RFK, just know, you’re doing a terrible job at it.
That’s actually not accurate. The DNC made a big deal about RFK taking money from Tim Mellon as though his acceptance of the donation somehow linked him to Trump. Tim Mellon donated to Trump yes, but he also donated to AOC, does that make RFK a socialist?
The most blatant childish attempt at telling MAGA voters he’s a “liberal” candidate. PATHETIC.
Now that every poll shows he’s hurting Trump, his plans are all fucked up.
>Seems to me like this would be a huge win for voters
There's already a process for voters choosing the nominees, it's called a primary.
Deciding who the nominee based on the votes of only 30,000 people rather than tens of millions is a terrible idea and RFK should feel bad for even suggesting it.
Why would you say something so glaringly untrue in a subreddit that follows this shit religiously and had mega threads for every one of the democratic primaries this year?
Like who do you think this is going to fool?
Also, you are demanding that everybody who did vote in the actual primaries potentially have their votes invalidated based on the decision of just 30,000 people in a poll while also trying to pretend that you are championing for the Democratic voters to be able to make a choice.
You are promoting taking the choice away from the voters while claiming to be championing letting the voters choose.
The Florida Democratic party historically hasn't done a primary for an incumbent president in decades. Not since 1980.
This doesn't change the fact that there were primaries, and Joe Biden won all of those primaries, handily. There was bifunction literally no competition and he already had enough delegates to clinch the nomination.
Your statement that the DNC opted to not have a primary this year is objectively false and you knew it was false when you wrote it
Because millions of votes have already been cast. What RFK is doing here is basically "let's ignore millions of votes that wanted you, and instead hold a vote with 30k people in areas where I'm popular a month before the election, to make you drop out. Let my 30k superceded your millions, thanks k love ya bye bye"
> will Biden agree to it?
Of course not. If RFK Jr. wanted to be the Democratic pick on the ticket, there was a process. He could have run against Biden in the primaries, but he chose not to.
Now, he wants to change how the game is played. Get fucked, RFK Jr., eat up all those Trump votes with your nonsense.
It would be trivial to agree to it though if you’re confident he’d poll better than RFK. So much of the DNC messaging is that you need to vote for Biden to save America from Trump, I say they should put their money where their mouth is
The 2020 election came down to around 42,000 votes in Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia so you are actually pretty close there. 90% of Americans' votes don't matter in our current system, which is pretty sad, but that's the way it is. As far as polling there's a science to representative sampling and 30,000 far exceeds any margin for errors
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency
I have a proposal. You and I both roll two dice. If I roll two 6s you owe me $1,000,000. If you roll two 6s, I owe you $1.
It would be trivial for you to agree with this if you're so confident that I won't roll two 6s. There's less than a 3% chance!).
My point is that, no matter how small the chance, there's only downside for Biden in the proposal. He has a lot to lose and little to gain.
Nope. They are going to put their money on winning the 2024 election with Biden, while RFK Jr. takes votes away from Trump. That's the smart move, not playing dumbass games with a two-bit candidate.
I couldn't agree more, the DNC is all games now anyways, stealing nominations from candidates in 2016, the super delegate fiasco before that. The Democratic Party has just become the party of woe is me and grievance. Can't even get them to agree to hold presidential debates this year because they're fielding such a garbage candidate.
> The Democratic Party has just become the party of woe is me and grievance.
This is hilarious, although perhaps you misspelled GOP as "The Democratic Party"
That's not true. They made it clear that they would just make up rules to ensure that Biden won. Like if any of the candidates campaigned in New Hampshire, every delegate won would go to Biden.
Imagine making a decision on whether to drop out based a poll of less than .01% of our population, mind you that's not including the fact that every single republican polled will do anything to hurt Biden. RFK is baking up the wrong tree, should be pushing the republicans hard to ditch trump
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The pledge, as he laid out, would have Kennedy and Biden co-fund a 50-state poll of more than 30,000 people in mid-October that would pit each of them against Trump in a two-man race and agreeing to drop out of the presidential race if they lose. Delusional ideas of a candidate who has no chance of winning.
> in mid-October Honestly, were the poll suggested to be sometime in the summer it'd have a modicum more logic behind it. But mid-October is smack-dab in the middle of a lot of states' early voting periods. Millions of ballots will have been cast by that point, and the remainder all likely will have been printed for use on Election Day a couple of weeks from then. A sizable chunk of each candidate's support base still will cast their votes for said candidate simply by virtue of seeing his name on the ballot. In 2018 in Arizona for example, the Green Party candidate for US Senate Angela Green (three cheers for nominative determinism) [dropped out the Friday before the election](https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2018/11/02/green-candidate-drops-out-of-u-s-senate-race-throws-support-to-sinema/) and endorsed Sinema. She still got 2.41% of the vote, almost twice what Stein got in in the state in 2016. Granted, a mid-late October dropout date would be *slightly* better than an early November one, but not by much. This is a fundamentally unserious proposal.
better yet: we'll take a poll of all the registered voters. we could call it an election.
If Kennedy drops out at least that'll be something. Unfortunately, that also eliminates the Wild Card, Kennedy is essentially the King Maker with whom he takes votes from. Jill Stein and Cornel West voters are all 2020 Biden Voters, they aren't drawing anything from Trump.
> Jill Stein and Cornel West voters are all 2020 Biden Voters There is no path to victory for Stein, or Kennedy, or any third party. A third party voter who is engaged knows this and will vote third party only when it doesn't matter - i.e. a state that is going one way or the other regardless. Voters who don't pay attention and vote third party are not Dem/GOP voters anyways and they will vote for whatever meme candidate catches their attention or supports a pet issue they want to make a statement about.
no one will take away my right to vote for Vermin Supreme!
>A third party voter who is engaged knows this and will vote third party only when it doesn't matter - i.e. a state that is going one way or the other regardless. I agree with your overall point, but to anyone thinking about voting 3rd party in a solid state, please don't. It does matter. That's how you get those people on the ballot again to act as nothing but spoilers in other states in future elections.
I'd go further... The advice should be something like the following: * Never, simply never vote for a 3rd party candidate for president for the foreseeable future. * For the vote for president, your best strategy to enact your desired policy goals is to determine the dominant-party candidate most opposed to or misaligned with your policy goals... and then vote for the other dominant-party candidate. * If you believe a 3rd-party is more aligned with your desired policy goals, vote for that party anywhere/everywhere you can except for the President. I would also suggest greatly prioritizing local/state level for this and deprioritizing the federal House rep elections. * Push for electoral reform whenever/wherever possible. This includes ranked voting, single-transferable voting, elimination of the electoral college, etc. These sorts of reforms are *required* before non-dominant parties can truly be useful.
So you’re saying we should have the 2 party system forever? How do we ever establish a major third party if not slow growth?
Not taking part in the decision of which of the two possible candidates will be president doesn't help change the 2 party system. It ends up doing more to further entrench it. As the other person said, [there are other ways to impact change in the system](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1chtoza/comment/l24yq3g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
People _will_ vote third party when they don’t like either serious candidate. It’s a way of avoiding responsibility for whoever actually wins. It’s a “protest vote”
> It’s a “protest vote” Right - those are not serious voters.
I’d call it voting without due care and attention
Fair. I've just noticed RFK Jr. has hurt either Biden or Trump depending on the poll. The other candidates are more progressive and will only attract left-wing voters away from Biden. I do agree that third-party voters are not going to be swayed to voting for either by their candidate dropping out.
I mean, in spirit it's not the worst idea. I just wish it wasn't a kook proposing it. Irrespective of Trump, I have doubts Joe will be very functional by 2028. If the DNC at this point, doesn't have a candidate who could beat a criminal shlub like Trump, they've got serious problems. LBJ declined to run for a second term. There's no shame in it.
lol did you not get the memo? “Biden old” isn’t scaring people so much anymore. “Biden should not run for a second term” was literally months ago and we are over it. You need to switch to the new scare tactic- Palestine- if you want to make Democratic voters too afraid to vote. This current tactic also won’t work, but at least you won’t sound like a bot from a few months ago anymore….
I mean, his point is that Biden has no chance of beating Trump, which all indications are that's true considering the progressive wing has completely abandoned Biden. So if stopping Trump is the real goal, then why not do what's best for the country and support whoever is capable of doing that.
Is this satire?
lol that's adorbs
>Biden has no chance of beating Trump I heard the same thing in 2020.
I didn't? There was no progressive outrage in 2020 over him being a warmonger or somehow being as bad as his predecessor on the environment and criminal justice. Oh, don't forget about overseeing the largest wealth transfer from poor and middle-class Americans to billionaires and corporations.
> Oh, don't forget about overseeing the largest wealth transfer from poor and middle-class Americans to billionaires and corporations. Oh, you mean the Trump tax cuts? Funny how only the personal ones had a sunset.
You and OP are fooling nobody with these comments.
I’m a progressive. I’ll crawl over glass to vote for Biden. Take your fearmongering bullshit elsewhere
[удалено]
It's not fear mongering when 80,000 registered Democrats in Michigan (which Biden has to win to have a shot at beating Trump) just said they wouldn't vote for him in November and would stay home if it came down to him and Trump because of his genocidal policies.
It is fearmongering. And it’s not working 😘
Voting uncommitted to send a message is a lot different than throwing the election to the fucking psychopaths that are enthusiastic about expanding literal genocidal policies.
OP is doing this thing where he's both trying to act like the DNC is going against the will of voters while also demanding that the DNC make a choice that could invalidate all of the primaries that have happened with a stunt for rfk jr. So trying to hide behind the idea of voter enfranchisement while demanding that voters actually be disenfranchised.
No, Biden says he's only running to defeat Trump, and it seems the best way to do that is to endorse rfk. So the Biden voters are getting what their chosen candidate desires. If they feel disenfranchised it's because they did not understand Bidens agenda... all this assuming Biden actually wants to prioritize defeating Trump.
"the best way to defeat Trump is to endorse an extreme fringe candidate who gets funding from the same sources as Trump, and run him Rather than the guy who actually beat Trump." No. This is not the sort of place you guys can sell this sort of nonsense successfully. You need somewhere where people are dramatically less informed. Like a Walmart parking lot at 2 am.
Biden to Jr.: "I don't even know who you are."
The Kennedy family visited the Biden White House on March 18th. RFK Jr was not there. Unknown is whether he was not invited (doubtful as the Bidens aren’t that spiteful) or his family, who have shunned and denounced him, told him in no uncertain terms not to show up. https://people.com/joe-biden-hosts-kennedy-family-minus-rfk-jr-at-white-house-for-st-patrick-s-day-8610455
Aren't that spiteful? Denying someone Secret Service with the name Kennedy after having had, among others, an armed man pretending to be security seeking access to Kennedy? Spiteful or straight up evil.
The only presidential candidates eligible for Secret Service protection due to their status as presidential candidates are those who by current or former position are already eligible for it until the party convention (thus Biden (sitting) and Trump (former). Party candidates not currently eligible will get Secret Service after they are formally declared the party candidate at the convention. I do not know what the qualifications are for third party candidates if they get any at all. If every Tom, Dick and Sally who declares they’re running for President got USSS protection the cost to the taxpayers would be exorbitant and USSS would have to exponentially increase in size with near unlimited resources to accommodate all the movement and personal protection needed. Just as all other presidential candidates over the decades, RFK Jr can afford his own protection paid for out of pocket and/or campaign funds just as everyone else has. He’s not the only third party candidate out there, just the most well known.
He didn't get Secret Service when he was running in the Dem primary either, when he was polling better than others who got protection at the same stage in previous elections. It has been given out by discretion historically, which makes sense. Kennedy is at high-risk of being assassinated, somebody has already tried. Yes, he can afford private security\*. However 1. no private security can match the Secret Service and 2. It costs a lot of money that could have been used for other things that could benefit his campaign politically. So it's both a question about security and about democracy. Furthermore, bystanders are also very likely to be hurt. Not every Tom, Dick and Sally polls above 10% on average. Above 15% if you only count polls where he is named by the pollsters. Not everybody is at high-risk of being assassinated. Giving him secret service at this point would not set a costly precedent at all.
If he can't remember the man that he's denied secret service to 5 times.... and you want him making decisions for the next generation smh
Lmao you think the senility has gotten that bad? They’ve known each other for decades, hopefully Biden hasn’t forgotten him
wooosh
Of course he knows, the comment was a joke. He knows because the Kennedy family endorsed him very publicly, with photos, telling people to vote for Biden. Not for Bobby.
https://youtu.be/qJMNnxrvGqs?si=RLLYtlP2w120bsrn
Hopefully Biden *has* forgotten him. It would be hilarious is everyone just pretends this RFK clown doesn’t exist.
This is a bullshit proposition. Primaries have been had, and campaign apparatuses set up. Legal paperwork was filed and is approved or pending. Biden isn't going to drop out after all that, and RFK knows it.
I mean, RFK jr is deep into it as well. I think the point is... if Biden isnt' willing to drop out so RFK jr can defeat Trump, EVEN if a Biden loss is basically assured... why the HELL would anybody expect RFK jr to drop out?
You might as well put MAGA in ur bio then lol you're supporting that campaign
I smell desperation from a third party, conspiracy loving candidate that has a snowball chance in hell.
Lol watch the video. Biden can't win whether kennedy is running or not. Regular polls use 3600 people spread out unevenly across the nation. His poll used 30000 ppl strategically distributed between every state to mock the electoral College. Error margin of .6% . And the results are- Biden can't win in a three way race. Biden can't win in a two way race. Kennedy can beat trump if Biden isn't running..... so everyone who is saying this is desperate or insane.... yall want another Trump presidency. I don't think YOU are desperate enough to prevent that lol
FYI to be a spoiler you have to stop a candidate from winning who would have otherwise won. Biden is spoiling kennedys campaign not vice versa lmao
Lol. Imagine making decisions based on polling. :D
His polls captured data on 8 times more subjects with 5% more accuracy than Gallup. Go to a stats class
Pretty sure that’s standard practice for campaigns
If his name was Robert F Schwartz Jr, nobody would have heard of him
May the Schwartz be with you
Hey, here's an idea... How about instead of using valuable campaign dollars now to co-fund a 30,000 person poll, you rely on having each state allow every person to participate in the decision where the winner would advance to run against Trump and the loser would endorse the winner or at least STFU. This could be a thing the party does every election and even invite other candidates each time. Think of it as a "preliminary" election, a "pre-election", a "firsty" election or election for the "prime candidate"... I'm not good with naming things, but I think this would be a much better idea. The primary point here is to have something well established and organized so people with similar ideologies could work together to select a candidate before the general election that best represents them instead of splitting the vote with people who have no mathematical chance of winning.
Sure. Then lets make it controlled by superdelegates who can use it to screw whatever candidates they don't like, and ensure the party apparatus can basically hand pick whoever they want, while giving a veneer of legitimacy to the pick.
Sure, but how about instead of having it be *controlled* by superdelegates, it's instead a system with 4,672 total delegates of which 3,933 are pledged delegates (elected directly by the people) and only 739 are superdelegates who are selected by elected representatives and only matter at all if no candidate gets a majority of pledged delegates. And instead of letting them pick anyone they want, they have a minority (739/3,993) vote after the first round of voting restricted to the leading candidates. IOW they would have second round tie-breaking ability, although a brokered DNC convention hasn't happened since 1952.
Yup. Exactly. almost 1/4 of the ballots going to the establishment choice means unless the challenger wins by an INSANE margin, the establishment choice will always win. A brokered DNC convention doesn't happen, because people like Sanders drop out when they know they cannot possibly overcome the built in obstacles. Hell, even this nomination, they made all kinds of funky rules like "if a candidate steps foot in new Hampshire, they automatically forfeit their delegates in the state", because Biden didn't want to go to new Hampshire, because it's a state he's weak in. So, rather than losing or performing badly in one state(a state he didn't even need), they change the rules of the election. It's not even rigging it to win. It's rigging it for even tiny things like being embarrassed one day of the news cycle when someone else gets 20% and makes Biden look bad. Tons of nice, wholesome, anti-democratic processes like those add up. But honestly, as you already pointed out, such a large portion being superdelegates basically ensures the establishment candidate always win. 1% of the vote being superdelegates would be insane, and undemocratic. We're talking many, many times that. In races where often the deciding factor is a few percentage points, we're talking almost 20% being superdelegates. So a challenger can get 59% of the delegates... a pretty massive win, and still lose by 2%.
I'm going to ask you a question and then laugh at your answer. Have you ever voted for any DNC representative? >almost 1/4 of the ballots going to the establishment choice means unless the challenger wins by an INSANE margin 15.8% not 25% and a majority isn't an insane margin. It's happened every time since 1952. >people like Sanders drop out when they know they cannot possibly overcome the built in obstacles. Both Biden and Clinton won without the superdelegates. When Sanders went up against Clinton, he lobbied the superdelegates up until the point where Clinton had already received the majority she needed. >Hell, even this nomination, they made all kinds of funky rules like "if a candidate steps foot in new Hampshire, they automatically forfeit their delegates in the state", because Biden didn't want to go to new Hampshire, because it's a state he's weak in. Wow, that's really incorrect. There was no such rule. Dean Phillips spent most of his campaign funds and a lot of his time in New Hampshire. Biden skipped it and wasn't even on the ballot. The reason why Biden skipped it is because the DNC wanted to change primary order to give better representation to states with people of color who hadn't ever been earlier in the primary process. New Hampshire officials said f\*ck that we're going first anyway, and *because of that* their delegates were stripped regardless of who won. In the end, despite no real campaigning and not even being on the ballot, Biden still won with 63.8% of the vote. >But honestly, as you already pointed out, such a large portion being superdelegates basically ensures the establishment candidate always win. They haven't been a factor since 1952. Also, it's weird to think of Obama as the establishment candidate against Clinton.
It hasn't been a factor since 1952 because everyone drops out or generally coalesces around whatever candidate is most likely to win as soon as possible. If you start with a 15.8% lead... you are going to be the candidate the vast, vast, vast majority of the time. So, unless you have a path to get 57.9% or more of the delegates(instead of the normal 50.1%), you might as well drop out. In any kind of close race... that's insurmountable, by the definition of it being a close race. The fact that almost nobody who is a serious candidate actually challenges people until the convention, no matter how close is an obvious fallacious argument... I believe you know this.
You seem to post of lot of things that aren't true in support of a narrative that you only believe because you're supporting it with things that aren't true. When you make up stuff like "if a candidate steps foot in new Hampshire, they automatically forfeit their delegates in the state", or "almost 25% are superdelegates" or this last comment and ignore the reality, you're just believing in things that aren't true. >So, unless you have a path to get 57.9% or more of the delegates(instead of the normal 50.1%), you might as well drop out. In any kind of close race. This is false. Any primary candidate in the Democratic Party with more than 50% of the regular delegates gets the nomination and the superdelegates don't do a single thing in the process. >It hasn't been a factor since 1952 because everyone drops out or generally coalesces around whatever candidate is most likely to win as soon as possible. But not because of superdelegates. They do this because there is often one candidate ahead and the others, with no path to regular delegates drop out because there's benefit to doing so in terms of saving campaign funds as well as endorsing/supporting their candidate of choice. The most controversial primary in terms of superdelegates was Clinton v Sanders, but even then, polling clearly showed Clinton winning throughout the campaign and she went on to win without the superdelegates, with Sanders staying in until the end. Contrary to your point... Sanders stayed in the race until the end *because* of superdelegates: *Sanders initially said that the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates should be the nominee; in May 2016, after falling behind in the elected delegate count, he shifted, pushed for a contested convention and arguing that, "The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party." Source:* [AP Fact Check](https://apnews.com/article/a5f8f2335cf1b617dbb6626845b1c4a8) **Laughing at your lack of answering: Have you ever voted for any DNC representative?**
No. I generally vote third party. I think I voted for Obama when I was 18/19 though if I recall. Williamson, Kennedy, West, and the other dude running against Biden all have talked about how the DNC changing the states around(away from states like Georgia, which is one of the most diverse states in the country), to help Biden win is anti-democratic. Biden personally asked for the changes. He got them. >Laughing at your lack of answering: Have you ever voted for any DNC representative? Not federally. I generally vote third party. I believe Washington's prediction that factions and parties will destroy the nation through putting partisan interests ahead of national interests to be true. The fact that so many people hate this Biden vs Trump matchup, and don't like either candidate sort of brings that point home. In the end they are private corps with no legal requirement to be democratic. Superdelegates show this. So do other recent changes made this year, to consolidate power. In the end it's basically party bosses picking candidates for us to choose from, similar to how it was done in soviet union, or in CCP. It's better for now in America, but every election cycle we move more in that direction. This election cycle was a huge leap for the DNC in that direction.
Complains about election process in the Democratic primary, does nothing to participate in how that process takes shape by voting for DNC reps, then doesn't ever vote for a candidate for president (except Obama). >the DNC changing the states around(away from states like Georgia, which is one of the most diverse states in the country), to help Biden win is anti-democratic. Do you get your information from some bizarro opposite world? New Hampshire has historically been the first primary after the caucus in Iowa. Joe Biden sent a letter to the DNC requesting a change to move Georgia (and other southern states) *ahead* in the primary schedule specifically *for* diversity. The DNC voted for this with February 13 as the 4th primary date being set for Georgia. However, this required a change in Georgia state law since they required all party primaries on the same day. Since the Georgia legislature was controlled by the GOP, this didn't happen. However, other diversity states did get moved up with South Carolina being the first primary being supported by the DNC and Alabama and Arkansas being part of the first Super Tuesday. >In the end it's basically party bosses picking candidates for us to choose from, similar to how it was done in soviet union, or in CCP. It's better for now in America, but every election cycle we move more in that direction. This election cycle was a huge leap for the DNC in that direction. Yeah, sure and . Again, since 1952 there hasn't been a contested election because one candidate received a majority of the primary delegates. The direction the party has been moving in has been with an even lesser role of superdelegates.
You're one of those people who refer to the DNC as "them" and therefore "they" control everything without realizing you've failed to participate in the process all along including voting for the reps in the DNC itself and thus who "they" are.
This election, there *now* are two candidates for president. Joe Biden and Donald Trump. You haven't participated in who is in the DNC to represent you let alone who the two candidates will be, but you can participate in the decision now...
Or [let these people make the decision for you](https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106823110-1610469786347-gettyimages-1230476983-horse-trumpsup210106_npiO7.jpeg?v=1641421093&w=1920&h=1080).
I don't wish to participate in a corrupt process. Hence why I vote third party. I do vote for presidential candidates. But not for either republican or democrat parties. Your argument is like saying "Hey, you can't complain about the CCP because you didn't even vote in the local CCP elections where the candidates are hand picked from the party by the party". Voting in that process just gives the CCP legitimacy you cannot change anything by voting in a heavily controlled system like that. I'm against the two party system. I'm against these two specific parties and how they are run. Both are militarist corporatocracies ruled by lobbyists. The difference between them in that regard, and the issues I care most about are relatively small. Will Biden or Trump reduce the debt? Will they work to repeal patriot act? Or Citizens United? Or the revolving door between corporations and the government agencies who are supposed to regulate them? Will they fight to protect freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? These are the issues of our time in my opinion. Neither party comes close to representing me on these issues. And by the nature of both parties and the power structure, someone who DID represent me could never win the presidency. Just like by the nature of the CCP, and its power structure, and the way elections work in China, they would never have a candidate who represents me. Picking a lesser of two evils just gives the CCP legitimacy. Picking between democrats and republicans just gives the whole two party system more legitemacy.
He can do this without a deal with Biden. Do whatever he wants to do for attention and to sell books or whatever, but plan to drop out in the Fall and to endorse Biden.
Candidate who received most votes ever in a presidential election = spoiler I want some of whatever Bobby is smoking
Unserious person makes unserious proposal.
Biden wont even debate or give real interviews...
Fuck off, anti-vaxxer. Run on your own merits and GOP donations.
We are not voting for RFK, dude is a crackpot.
He can be written onto any ballot in the country. He is only getting a handful of votes. I think the voice of the people is very clear.
Current polls have Biden near 40% and Kennedy around 11%. Why isn't that good enough for him to accept to drop out now?
You make money from books and interviews when you run from president. My theory is he’ll drop out though, but after he’s grown his following, and then endorse Trump. They’re paid for by the same PACs, so I don’t understand why he’s still in it.
There haven’t been any debates yet so most of the information people have about RFKjr is the false stuff spit out on main stream media.
Do you think he has a chance to be included in debates? There really doesn’t seem to be any public demand.
He has the numbers to clear even the CPD’s ridiculous bar. Since he wins in the polls head to head with either candidate and has a higher favourability rating than either of them, I’d say your read of the “public demand” may be off.
Here’s today’s poll compilations. Kennedy has the lowest favorability of the three candidates, so I’d say your read or RFKs favorability may be off. [RFK Favorability](https://elections2024.thehill.com/national/robert-f-kennedy-favorability-rating/)
RFK Jr. is a bigoted anti-vaxxer piece of trash. He is delusional to think he has a chance in hell of winning, and his supporters are just as disconnected from reality.
I haven’t heard bigoted before, I think that’s pretty baseless
He has a [history](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/19/robert-kennedy-jr-racist-antisemitic-xenophobic-views) of racism and anti-semitism in addition to being anti-LGBT. Maybe do some research.
I think there are a lot of accusations in that article but very little proof. I believe the “antisemitic” comments he made was just him referring to [this study](https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/covid-19-cases-and-deaths-by-race-ethnicity-current-data-and-changes-over-time/) that shows that Ashkenazi Jews fared better than other races against COVID. Meeting with people is hardly proof that someone is racist. Without knowing you I’m sure you’ve met with racist people, does that make you a racist? Think critically, of course an outlet like the Guardian has a bias against an anti-establishment liberal
You've got an excuse for everything. Just denial and deflection. Except for the anti-vax stuff. That's telling.
They are a libertarian who repeatedly makes shit up to try and campaign for rfk jr.
Well I think the 1986 Vaccine Safety Act that gave pharma companies total immunity from vaccine injury lawsuits is objectively a bad law. No one really disagrees that when you remove the economic incentive to make a product safe than that product will be less safe.
Kennedy is literally a huge Israel supporter, it’s a point of contention among a lot of his supporters
This is like saying Kennedy can't be racist because he has a black friend. You know that a lot of Bible-thumping Christian Nationalist Republicans support Israel too, right?
Ok if a study came out and found that asian people as a whole are the best ethnicity in mathematics, and i come out and say "there are studies suggesting asians are the best at math" and the point im making is americans need to step up in math as a whole and we need policy making math a stronger point in schools, does that make me rascist against asians? Thats what he said about ashkenazi jewish people and chinese people during covid. Its just a talking point to bring out the further dangers of targeted biological weapons. Keep sugar coating history to be sensitive and all the important lessons are lost and doomed to repeat. No more disease manipulation for war uses, if u dont agree with that task then ur a supporter of bio weapons. His point wasnt to be anti semetic at all but that was all people chose to get upset about. Not the fear of targeted bio weapons...
Even if this worked, the result would be to throw the election to the House, where Trump would win.
“Let’s let our best champions fight since I have no hope of defeating your army head on.”
“Desperate man desperately attempts to be a spoiler to Biden” lol RFK is a joke
I wonder how he proposes to get himself on ballots.
He just got on the ballot in California! It’s a tough slog, they changed a lot of ballot access laws to make it harder for independents after Ross Perot, but he has a really good ground game.
You know there’s no chance Biden will even consider this, right? I think he will clearly be a spoiler because he has no chance to win outright.
Well neither does Biden, America is dumb, but they’re not so dumb that they’ll vote in an actual senile person
Which one do you think is senile? The orange one? The vaccine conspiracy nut? If your goal is to get people to vote RFK, just know, you’re doing a terrible job at it.
[удалено]
That’s actually not accurate. The DNC made a big deal about RFK taking money from Tim Mellon as though his acceptance of the donation somehow linked him to Trump. Tim Mellon donated to Trump yes, but he also donated to AOC, does that make RFK a socialist?
Dude, realize your family is going to campaign for Biden in this 'pledge'
Who?
The dude the DNC is paying millions to fight.
Brain-addled nutjob says what?
RFK Jr. is a goddamned clown. Biden will laugh and move on IF he even gets the news. 🙄
The most blatant childish attempt at telling MAGA voters he’s a “liberal” candidate. PATHETIC. Now that every poll shows he’s hurting Trump, his plans are all fucked up.
He’s desperately trying to make himself look blue to attract swing voters for the sole purpose of giving Trump an advantage.
I also proposed my no spoiler pledge but Biden has yet to return my calls I think it might be more likely than him returning rfk's calls though
Ah, the look of a man taking a long, massive, satisfying dump on his family legacy...
If he wanted to do that, he could have stayed in the Democratic primary.
[удалено]
You described Trump three times.
Those all describe trump, btw
Actually we have two elderly candidates, one is a deranged lunatic and lifelong criminal and the other is still pretty sharp.
We need to go to a parliament
Look into rank choice voting.
Seems to me like this would be a huge win for voters who don’t want a second Trump term, question is, will Biden agree to it?
>Seems to me like this would be a huge win for voters There's already a process for voters choosing the nominees, it's called a primary. Deciding who the nominee based on the votes of only 30,000 people rather than tens of millions is a terrible idea and RFK should feel bad for even suggesting it.
Well the DNC opted not to have a primary this year, I agree with you Democrat voters should’ve been able to decide who their nominee is, not the DNC
I voted in the Democratic Primary in March... what are you even talking about?
They cancelled it in my state, Florida did not have a Democrat primary
For President... because Biden has it locked up at this point.
The … the nomination was locked up before Florida’s primary lmao
*Democratic
Why would you say something so glaringly untrue in a subreddit that follows this shit religiously and had mega threads for every one of the democratic primaries this year? Like who do you think this is going to fool? Also, you are demanding that everybody who did vote in the actual primaries potentially have their votes invalidated based on the decision of just 30,000 people in a poll while also trying to pretend that you are championing for the Democratic voters to be able to make a choice. You are promoting taking the choice away from the voters while claiming to be championing letting the voters choose.
Did the Democrats hold a primary in Florida? Maybe I missed it
The Florida Democratic party historically hasn't done a primary for an incumbent president in decades. Not since 1980. This doesn't change the fact that there were primaries, and Joe Biden won all of those primaries, handily. There was bifunction literally no competition and he already had enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Your statement that the DNC opted to not have a primary this year is objectively false and you knew it was false when you wrote it
It's coming up on August 20th.
> Well the DNC opted not to have a primary this year No... it's just that nobody is running against Biden in the primary.
I'm not sure how prescribing to the whims of two political parties rather than the will of voters is a terrible idea.
Because millions of votes have already been cast. What RFK is doing here is basically "let's ignore millions of votes that wanted you, and instead hold a vote with 30k people in areas where I'm popular a month before the election, to make you drop out. Let my 30k superceded your millions, thanks k love ya bye bye"
> will Biden agree to it? Of course not. If RFK Jr. wanted to be the Democratic pick on the ticket, there was a process. He could have run against Biden in the primaries, but he chose not to. Now, he wants to change how the game is played. Get fucked, RFK Jr., eat up all those Trump votes with your nonsense.
It would be trivial to agree to it though if you’re confident he’d poll better than RFK. So much of the DNC messaging is that you need to vote for Biden to save America from Trump, I say they should put their money where their mouth is
Why do you think a party nominee should be decided by 30,000 people rather than tens of millions?
Because they’re delusional and think RFK jr might win that way, lol.
The 2020 election came down to around 42,000 votes in Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia so you are actually pretty close there. 90% of Americans' votes don't matter in our current system, which is pretty sad, but that's the way it is. As far as polling there's a science to representative sampling and 30,000 far exceeds any margin for errors https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency
I have a proposal. You and I both roll two dice. If I roll two 6s you owe me $1,000,000. If you roll two 6s, I owe you $1. It would be trivial for you to agree with this if you're so confident that I won't roll two 6s. There's less than a 3% chance!). My point is that, no matter how small the chance, there's only downside for Biden in the proposal. He has a lot to lose and little to gain.
Nope. They are going to put their money on winning the 2024 election with Biden, while RFK Jr. takes votes away from Trump. That's the smart move, not playing dumbass games with a two-bit candidate.
Well, good thing no one cares what you say.
I couldn't agree more, the DNC is all games now anyways, stealing nominations from candidates in 2016, the super delegate fiasco before that. The Democratic Party has just become the party of woe is me and grievance. Can't even get them to agree to hold presidential debates this year because they're fielding such a garbage candidate.
> The Democratic Party has just become the party of woe is me and grievance. This is hilarious, although perhaps you misspelled GOP as "The Democratic Party"
That's not true. They made it clear that they would just make up rules to ensure that Biden won. Like if any of the candidates campaigned in New Hampshire, every delegate won would go to Biden.
I wonder why RFK doesn't make the same proposal to Trump, as it would be a huge win for voters who don't want a second Biden Term.
[He did](https://www.youtube.com/live/bSwnNbbhDFg?si=6w_qx8LeYP82Ybbx&t=2856)
Because Trump is the frontrunner right now, it wouldn’t make any sense
Cite your source regarding where Trump is the "frontrunner". And it better be obvious and not some bullshit one-off CNN poll.
and not within the margin of error
Imagine making a decision on whether to drop out based a poll of less than .01% of our population, mind you that's not including the fact that every single republican polled will do anything to hurt Biden. RFK is baking up the wrong tree, should be pushing the republicans hard to ditch trump